Nikon D820 (more convincing rumor)

[shadowblade]

The D820 looks like it might be a good reason to stick with Nikon if you already have Nikon lenses, but not a reason to jump ship to Nikon if you're currently running Canon or Sony, or if (like me at the moment) you have no camera equipment whatsoever.

Going on Canon's and Sony's technical progress over the last few years, it seems almost certain that the A9r/A7r3 and the 5Ds2 will have the D820 soundly beaten as a camera for landscape/studio/other non-action subjects, unless Nikon can blindside the competition with a 70+ MP sensor with 15 stops of DR (which is essentially what they did last time with the 36MP Exmor, against the 22MP 5D3 and its banding shadow noise).

[kers]

The D820 looks like it might be a good reason to stick with Nikon if you already have Nikon lenses, but not a reason to jump ship to Nikon if you're currently running Canon or Sony, or if (like me at the moment) you have no camera equipment whatsoever.

Going on Canon's and Sony's technical progress over the last few years, it seems almost certain that the A9r/A7r3 and the 5Ds2 will have the D820 soundly beaten as a camera for landscape/studio/other non-action subjects, unless Nikon can blindside the competition with a 70+ MP sensor with 15 stops of DR (which is essentially what they did last time with the 36MP Exmor, against the 22MP 5D3 and its banding shadow noise).

Over the years Nikon has always been a bit behind, but always came up with very solid cameras without major weaknesses;
It is a different company approach that is also reflected in keeping the bajonet compatible with all their lenses.
When i bought the solid and elegant Nikon FE i could have chosen the Canon A1- a completely different camera filled with buttons and in a way more modern.
Sony manages to put lots of new material out. Maybe they rush forward a bit too much to control the quality. Like Sigma on lenses they are aggressively pushing the boundaries- a good thing.
I think that Nikon is now going through a company change from DSLR to more electronic EVF cameras. They have shown that they can make good EVF cameras - i have a very nice J5 to prove it.
The megapixel race is not that important beyond 36MP. It is like 4K video vs 1080P. Only with certain type of photography and printed display you see the 36MP.
I have a lot of perfect large images- what is missing is the outlet to show them in all their quality.
I think the major weakness of Nikon is on the side of software. it is not on the same level as the hardware/firmware.

[Otto Phocus]

Shadowblade,

I think that for the majority of photographers, all the major camera manufacturers make excellent cameras.  The practical differences are so slight that personal preference probably has more influence in the selection.

Pick whatever camera you like, it will be a good one and you can then start working on your technique to take advantage of what the camera can do.

I know that in my situation, my camera is not the weakest link in the photographic system. 

The best time to buy a camera is always two to three years from now
The best time to practice your photographic technique is right now

[shadowblade]

Technique and gear have nothing to do with each other.

If you think technique is all that matters, go and shoot with an iPhone. If you think that technique trumps gear, take that iPhone shot of a landscape against a setting sun, with action happening in the foreground, and print it as a 40x120" panorama, to be viewed close-up.

If your subjects and display methods are well within the technical limits of any gear, gear may not matter much to you. But if many of your shots and prints are running up against the technical limits of the gear, things like DR, resolution, ISO capability, etc. are real tradeoffs.

[BernardLanguillier]

Talking about Nikon lens quality; there is still much to desired .
the best example is the mediocre  1.4g 50mm lens introduced with the D3x camera. At that time they should have made a lens in line with the 105mm f1.4 .
Now a decade later there is still nothing better? 
I am very happy Sigma jumped in with the ART line.
I am sure Nikon has the power to make beautiful lenses as you stated. In 2016 they made a nice turn introducing very nice lenses indeed, like the superlight 300pf lens that makes very beautiful rendered images.

True, the 50mm f1.4 is sub-par but you have to look hard to find such examples in their line up. All of their cheap and compact f1.8 lenses are excellent (the 85mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.4 stand out in particular), the 300 f4 PF is indeed brilliant,...

What I find puzzling is the difference of business results btw Nikon and Canon when the facts show that today Nikon has the better cameras and overall the better lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hogloff]

Until something more shiny comes a few years later

Or until the new kid on the block is mirrorless, leaving DSLR's to slowly fade away.

[Ray]

I'm one of those who likes to see reality as reflected in a mirror, as opposed to a digital concoction.

My main concerns about any new camera, are weight, megapixel count, dynamic range, focussing accuracy, lens compatibility with the lenses I already own, cost, and general ease of use.

Having jumped from Canon to Nikon, I'm not keen on jumping again to Sony.

[BJL]

Shadowblade,

If you think technique is all that matters, go and shoot with an iPhone.  . . .

your reply refutes the bizarrely common, absurd and extreme dogma that technique is everything and gear is nothing, but the post you replied to was not saying that:

... I think that for the majority of photographers, all the major camera manufacturers make excellent cameras.  The practical differences are so slight that personal preference probably has more influence in the selection. ...

So what happens when we limit the comparison to the best ILC cameras from various makers, or to comparing the best cameras of each brand in a given format, leaving aside extremes like phone cameras and small sensor compacts? My guess is that within a format, the results achieved by most (but not all) photographers in most (but not all) situations will depend far more on their technique than on their equipment.

But I do not like either/or, all-or-nothing comparisons. I prefer to think of the "gamut" of a camera: the range of situations where its results are about as good as can be got with any gear.  Phone camera have a far smaller gamut than ILCs, and my modest MFT kit has a smaller gamut than the best available in formats 36x24mm and up, but there is a healthy range of cases (like some scenes without extreme subject brightness range, little or no subject motion, where large DOF is desired, and to be viewed "normally", not with pixel-peeping scrutiny) that fit in the gamut of even good phone cameras, and many more that fit the gamut of my MFT kit.  That is not to say that more demanding cases make greater demands on both gear and technique!

[D White]

True, the 50mm f1.4 is sub-par but you have to look hard to find such examples in their line up. All of their cheap and compact f1.8 lenses are excellent (the 85mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.4 stand out in particular), the 300 f4 PF is indeed brilliant,...

What I find puzzling is the difference of business results btw Nikon and Canon when the facts show that today Nikon has the better cameras and overall the better lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

.


No, Canon in general has the better lenses, now more than ever. Check out comparisons in DP review in detail. Factual comparisons are more reliable than subjective comments. The sensor gap is closing to. A number of years ago I was tempted to change to Nikon, I am glad I did not.

[kers]

... The sensor gap is closing to....

As is the lens gap?

[BernardLanguillier]

Canon has some very good lenses, but as far as I am concerned for all the lenses that matter Nikon has the upper hand:

- 19mm T/S
- 24-70mm f2.8 for which VR is a game changer
- 70-200mm f2.8 where the Nikon is IMHO the best zoom kens ever designed
- 105mm f1.4 that is the king of portait lenses in terms of look and technical perfection
- compact 300mm f4 PF
- all the super teles except the 200-400mm f4
- all the compact f1.8 primes

Those are not impressions, those are factual.

As a result I have a hard time seeing how Canon could be considered ahead, but I am willing to listen .

Cheers,
Bernard

[D White]

Canon has some very good lenses, but as far as I am concerned for all the lenses that matter Nikon has the upper hand:

- 19mm T/S
- 24-70mm f2.8 for which VR is a game changer
- 70-200mm f2.8 where the Nikon is IMHO the best zoom kens ever designed
- 105mm f1.4 that is the king of portait lenses in terms of look and technical perfection
- compact 300mm f4 PF
- all the super teles except the 200-400mm f4
- all the compact f1.8 primes

Those are not impressions, those are factual.

As a result I have a hard time seeing how Canon could be considered ahead, but I am willing to listen .

Cheers,
Bernard

You are clearly a very intelligent person who is well versed in the technical aspects of the art and science of photography, and a generous contributor to this forum. Your postings are always interesting to read and I find myself in agreement with you on a wide range of topics.

At the end of the day if you are happy with your equipment selections and I am happy with mine we both win. And we likely both know "the best" will always be a moving target of constant competition among manufactures in addition to the users subjective evaluations and needs. Specific lenses may particularly stand out, like your 105f1.4, which does look spectacular, until Canon releases their 85f1.4 IS soon

My concern here is more basic than a friendly Nikon / Canon rivalry; which is the statement of "facts" without referencing test sources by valid and respected evaluators, particularly when there is a strong pattern of brand devotion. "Facts" without reference are an opinion. Today, in the world of Trump, we are bombarded by "alternate facts" that are not supported by any provided evidence.

Even with a comparative study, the scientific mind must be ever vigilant to the methods used. A example of this would include a simple number put forth by a DxO study on lens resolutions while noting they used different sensors of vastly different resolutions. Yet people buy into this stuff without seeing the failings.

My position came in part from spending time on "The Digital Picture" which seems to supply some very comprehensive test chart evaluations that can be view side by side and allow the viewer to make some of their own conclusions. They do not have all the current Nikon lenses but plenty enough to see that some of the "facts" are more like myths. Even the highly touted new Nikon 70-200f2.8F seems to still fall short of the Canon. The famed Nikon 14-24 is no where near as good as the myth led me to believe. Even a number a mythical prime Zeiss lenses fall short of the Canon 16-35f2.8 III, but for the Otis.

I won't beat this to death any more. My point is that "facts" need a valid reference or else they are merely an opinion that may only add to perpetuating myths.

And some tongue in cheek; if the latest generation of super-tele Nikkors are finally a bit better than the equivalent Canons, it is due to Nikon finally buying a supply of fluorite from Canon and dropping the claim that their ED glass was better. And also buying some of those Canon electromechanical diaphragms instead of the archaic pin actuated type. So you may have some Canon DNA in those Nikkors you love!

I will continue to look forward to your posts as always.

Regards
 

[kers]

...
I won't beat this to death any more. My point is that "facts" need a valid reference or else they are merely an opinion that may only add to perpetuating myths.
...

Hai,
As lens quality is concerned Zeiss, Canon, Fuji, Sigma, Nikon....All are capable of producing very good optics... no doubt...
It is usually more who made the latest...
As most of the new lenses are very sharp - it will depend on other things like AF speed/accuracy and rendering style etc.

As you mentioned the 14-24mm nikkor-
It is still a great lens and it took other companies about a decade to come with something similar...and of course some of those are better now.
Nikon will make a replacement soon is the common idea.
The 24mmPCE is probably not as good as the 24mm TS from Canon that came some years later, but the new 19mm PCE is better than the 17mm TS... etc.
Most new lenses are good enough for the finest photography.

references...
look here :
www.lenscore.org
Nobody but them knows exactly how they test, but they use a dedicated 200MP sensor to see the quality of the lens.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hello David,

I am fully aligned with the need to base opinion on measurments.

My comments are based on various sources such as dxomark, Lenscore, lens rentals,...

To just give you one example, the 70-200 were compared by lensrentals and the Nikon clearly came on top. The Canon is a great lens, but the Nikon is simply outstanding. I use one as well as some of the best lenses in the world including the Otus, the best Leica R glass, the best Hasselblad glass, the best Rodenstock glass... and the Nikon zoom belongs to that club.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hogloff]

Canon has some very good lenses, but as far as I am concerned for all the lenses that matter Nikon has the upper hand:

- 19mm T/S
- 24-70mm f2.8 for which VR is a game changer
- 70-200mm f2.8 where the Nikon is IMHO the best zoom kens ever designed
- 105mm f1.4 that is the king of portait lenses in terms of look and technical perfection
- compact 300mm f4 PF
- all the super teles except the 200-400mm f4
- all the compact f1.8 primes

Those are not impressions, those are factual.

As a result I have a hard time seeing how Canon could be considered ahead, but I am willing to listen .

Cheers,
Bernard

So if you walk into a high end gallery and see a bunch of prints on display, you can pick out which were taken with Canon lenses and which were taken with Nikon? I think not. If not...then why does it matter so much to you? Top end lenses from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony, Sigma etc... All produce amazing results to the point where the prints made by these lenses cannot be distinguished with any accuracy.

[BernardLanguillier]

So if you walk into a high end gallery and see a bunch of prints on display, you can pick out which were taken with Canon lenses and which were taken with Nikon? I think not. If not...then why does it matter so much to you? Top end lenses from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony, Sigma etc... All produce amazing results to the point where the prints made by these lenses cannot be distinguished with any accuracy.

Don't know if I could, but I don't remember ever claiming I would be able to, did I?

The point I have been trying to make is that the current important business results difference btwn Canon and Nikon isn't the result of Canon offering better equipment.

It seems you agree.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hogloff]

Don't know if I could, but I don't remember ever claiming I would be able to, did I?

The point I have been trying to make is that the current important business results difference btwn Canon and Nikon isn't the result of Canon offering better equipment.

It seems you agree.

Cheers,
Bernard

Very rare the market leader in any market has the better equipment. Depending on what you shoot...maybe Nikon and/or Canon does not have the better equipment. I shoot with the Sony mirrorless system and Batis lenses...and for me the combination of weight and image quality from my setup cannot be matched by anything from either Canon or Nikon. So for me, Sony has the better gears.

Kind of childish bordering on fanboism discussion.

[BernardLanguillier]

I can fully understand the reason why photographers move to Sony/add Sony bodies to their Canon line up of excellent lenses and see a good correlation btwn the value Sony delivers to the market and their growing business success. I could see myself buy a a9r easily.

I just don't see the same with Canon.

If discussing this matches your definition of childish fanboyisn then that must be what it is.

Anyway, I probably took this thread off topic in the process so I would propose to keep it at that and to go back to discussing the unique value the D820 will be delivering in combination with the amazing Nikon glass.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Michael Erlewine]

Some of the most recent rumors puts the D820 as the D850. That's fine. They also claim it is about 44 Mpx, which keeps shrinking the size of the usable sensor. But the one rumor that horrifies me is that they say that the D850 will have the ISO engine of the D500, concentrating on the upper ISOs and not the lower ISOs like the marvelous ISO 64 that is in the D810. If this is true, then the camera would be useless for me and I will have to wait for the Sony 70 Mpx (or whatever) camera rumored to be coming this summer.

And, I would buy a backup D810 as soon as I heard that news. I don't have to have 50 Mpx, but I do need the ISO 64 that I am used to in the D810.

[davidgp]

Some of the most recent rumors puts the D820 as the D850. That's fine. They also claim it is about 44 Mpx, which keeps shrinking the size of the usable sensor. But the one rumor that horrifies me is that they say that the D850 will have the ISO engine of the D500, concentrating on the upper ISOs and not the lower ISOs like the marvelous ISO 64 that is in the D810. If this is true, then the camera would be useless for me and I will have to wait for the Sony 70 Mpx (or whatever) camera rumored to be coming this summer.

And, I would buy a backup D810 as soon as I heard that news. I don't have to have 50 Mpx, but I do need the ISO 64 that I am used to in the D810.

That ISO 64 is the strongest point of the D810... That gives it the extraordinary DR that this camera has... Since I photograph landscape the 99% of the pictures will make this camera less appealing to me...